People v. Conde G.R. No.

113269, April
10, 2001

Fact: Apollo Romero, was home sitting by the window and drinking
coffee when he saw four men block the path of two decease Indian
nationals (bombay) on a motorcycle. One of the men, later identified
as Oscar Conde, poked a gun at the two Indians while his three
companions approached and stabbed the Indians. After the stabbing,
the four men fled. Romero was about 25 to 35 meters away from the
place where the crime was committed. PO3 Rodencio Sevillano,
testified that he was assigned with the Intelligence and Investigation
Division (IID) of the PNP, he was told to investigate the abovecited
incident. The police arrested the three accused. Police recovered the
weapons used in the robbery, when Felicidad Macabare, Conde’s wife,
went to the police station to talk to the accused. These weapons were
discovered inside her bag after a routine inspection. Sevillano
admitted, however, that they did not have a warrant of arrest when
they apprehended the accused. Nor did they have a search warrant
when they inspected Felicidad’s bag and when they searched the
house of a certain Jimmy where they found the stolen items.

Issue: Whether the conviction of the accused is valid even if their

arrest was conducted in violation for their right against warrantless
arrest.

Held: Yes, the arrest was a clear violation of their constitutional right;
unfortunately, appellants did not assert their constitutional rights prior
to their arraignment. This is fatal to their case. An accused is estopped
from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the
quashing of the Information against him before his arraignment. When
the appellants entered their pleas on arraignment without invoking
their rights to question any irregularity, which might have
accompanied their arrests, they voluntarily submitted themselves to
the jurisdiction of the court and the judicial process. Any objection,
defect, or irregularity attending their arrests should had been made
before they entered their pleas. It is much too late for appellants to
raise the question of their warrantless arrests. Their pleas to the
information upon arraignment constitute clear waivers of their rights
against unlawful restraint of liberty. Furthermore, the illegal arrest of
an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error. The
warrantless arrest, even if illegal, cannot render void all other
proceedings including those leading to the conviction of the appellants
and his co-accused, nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict
the guilty when all the facts on record point to their culpability.